sincerely Bob if I will do here in public what you have asked me I think we will become the most hated people around those forums ( and maybe we are getting close to that right now with this DS battle endless discussion ).
I think you have read some last post of people that are starting acting badly and this is not what I am looking for here in.
I devote my time and my passion for those ships ( and it is a lot with a lot of personal renounce for me and my loved family ) not to obtain such a treatment even if I can easily imagine the people behind that.
They will never change my attitude and approach, like it or not.
But the world is full of different type of persons and we are here exposed to their acts.
In my opinion all this informations you requested are already there published on hundreds of post.
But just to show you how friendly I can still communicate to you about this I propose you to take this offline between the 2 of us and I can dedicate you all the time and effort you need and respond with attached detailed material to all your requests.
I offer you to go thru all your last version of the battle ( 2 big post's ) and I can tell you statement by statement were I have different opinion and why.
Than I will take this last post and respond each of your request.
All my responses to you will be supported by evidences.
But first I want your commitment of open mind and willingness to accept everything that will come out of it based on the evidences I will provide you from Official Documents or battle eyewitness books and articles one by one that will resolve the conflicts.
Last we will go thru the photos and film and refer it to the battle scenario.
This way we will not bother anymore the forums were as you can see nobody wants more about this ( unless some newcomers that can still write me privately in case, like Ian K W ) and very few are still actively discussing with us this battle ( and I will still cover the post with them ) way too much covered for average experts peole that surely already have their own opinions made.
No more generic post discussions about the difference between the 2 scenarios up until we are done togheter.
I want your word of Honor of a friendly and fair discussion between old fellows and we will see what we will be able to achieve togheter.
You and me only !
Despite your age ( ) you seems still very sharp and acute and I have no doubts that if you really want you can do this with me.
But be ready because you will be going thru a lot of material jumping from one document to another, studying Bismarck and Prinz Eugen ship details and we will be reviewing every movement minute by minute of this battle of 6 ships from 05.30 till 06.30.
You must clear your mind from pre-conceived views and recreate with me all the events one by one using only evidences and no interpretations.
If you want we can write a joint document were we can put all our evaluations ( even the differences in case ) so at the end there will be a track of what we have done and accomplished.
Is your computer OK to receive a lot of Mega Bytes ??.
Please do not underestimate my offer since right now I am so busy ( and my personal friends know my situation both from work and hobby commitments made ) that this will cost me a huge unplanned personal effort.
But at this point I think it is the only solution.
Bob, I think this is a unique offer that you should not refuse, and I applaud Antonio for that. I suggest you do as he says and take all this off-line.
Sorry, but I have other commitments here in my retirement community and I'm trying to juggle responses under several different topics on both websites, so it might take a couple of days for me to respond to your comments and questions. I will, however, try to get back to you and my other correspondents as soon as possible. I am sure that Antonio will keep you entertained in the meanwhile.
Actually, you have stepped into a gray area where there are inconsistencies in the available evidence which gives each side the opportunity to claim that selected items of evidence supports their point of view. I am really not interested in different points of view, but rather in seeking the truth as to what actually happened during the battle. I prefer to deal with the hard cold facts and reasonable assumptions rather than unsupported speculations.
There is one bit of evidence which I just ran across again recently and which I believe that you should have to properly evaluate the overall situation. In his book, "The Bismarck Episode," Captain Russell Grenfell, R.N. wrote: "The Bismarck made no attempt to follow the Prince of Wales, but was seen to alter course away, as the Prince of Wales turned, to avoid fancied torpedo tracks, though no torpedoes had been fired by the British ships."
Unlike Kennedy, Grenfell places the time of the Bismarck's turn as about the same time as when the Prince of Wales turned away. Admiralty Report ADM116/4362 states: "It now seems probable that the enemy turned away at the same time as the Prince of Wales and about two enemy salvos were seen short during this period." The Prince of Wales Salvo Plot shows the beginning of a turn to starboard at the end of the reconstructed track of the Bismarck during the battle. All of this admittedly supports Antonio's theory of the battle.
Let's review the tactical situation up to that time. I believe that the Bismarck was about 1,000 yards directly astern of the Prinz Eugen when Photo NH69722 was taken as the Bismarck opened fire at the Hood at 0556. From there, the Prinz Eugen continued on a straight-line course of 220 degrees until 0603, according to her Battle Sketch, while the Bismarck sailed on a divergent straight-line course of 212 degrees until 0602, according to the Prince of Wales Salvo Plot.
When you actually plot out the courses of the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to the common time of 0602, the Bismarck would have been about 700 yards off the port quarter of the Prinz Eugen. I believe that Photo NH69730 was taken about one minute before that time, at 0601, and the position of the Bismarck several hundred yards off the port quarter of the Prinz Eugen, as seen in the photograph, is entirely consistent with that plot.
We know from the Prinz Eugen War Diary and her Battle Sketch that the cruiser made three hard turns during the battle, the first to starboard at 0603.0, the second to port at 0604.5, and the third back to starboard at 0606.0. These turns were purportedly made to avoid oncoming torpedoes, but while there is no question that the Prinz Eugen did make those turns, the reason given for them is highly questionable.
The normal maneuver for a ship to avoid torpedoes is to turn toward the enemy, in this case, to port, and comb the tracks of the oncoming torpedoes with the bow of the ship. This tactic gives the crew the best visibility to spot the torpedo tracks and the capability to maneuver the ship to avoid the torpedoes. You can't really avoid torpedoes by turning your stern to them or continuing to expose the length of the ship to torpedoes by turning back to port, as the Prinz Eugen had done.
After the Hood blew up at 0600.0, the Bismarck turned her sights to the Prince of Wales and began firing at the British battleship at about 0600.5. With a rate of fire of two rounds per minute, the Bismarck fired three additional salvos at the Prince of Wales at 0601.0, 0601.5, and 0602.0. Based on the time of flight for 15-inch shells at a range of 15,000-16,000 yards, these salvos would have landed about 22 seconds after being fired.
Reports indicate that the Prince of Wales' compass platform was struck about a minute or so after the Bismarck opened fire on the British battleship, and that the Prince of Wales began to withdraw from the scene of battle at about 0602. The Bismarck scored four hits during the time period from 0600.5 to 0602.0, most likely one from each of the first four salvos she fired at the Prince of Wales, so the hit on the compass platform probably came from the second or third salvo.
Antonio would have us believe that the Bismarck did in fact turn to starboard away from the Prince of Wales at about the same time that the Prince of Wales gave up the fight and began to retreat from the scene of battle at 0602. This was just when the Bismarck was scoring hit after hit on the hapless Prince of Wales without suffering an damage in return from the British battleship. At the time, the Bismarck was about 700 yards off the port quarter of the Prinz Eugen.
Antonio's reconstruction has the Bismarck turning to starboard from that point, crossing the wake of the Prinz Eugen at 0603, continuing on for several hundred yards on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, swinging a wide arc behind the Prinz Eugen, leaving the cruiser exposed to enemy fire for several minutes, turning back to port, crossing the wake of the Prinz Eugen again at 0608, and reappearing several hundred yards off the port beam of the cruiser by 0609 when the Bismarck ceased fire.
While Antonio can point out some selected pieces of evidence that would tend to support his theory, there is also strong and considerable evidence to the contrary. For one, no mention of such a turn is made by the Baron, the senior Bismarck survivor, nor by Vice-Admiral B.B. Schofield, the most credible British authority on the Bismarck episode. Neither does Kennedy make any mention of such a turn at the same time that the Prince of Wales withdraws from the scene.
Then we have the battle diagrams of Paul Schmalenbach and other competent German Naval historians, all of whom put the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen from 0601 until after 0609 when the Bismarck ceased fire. Paul Scmalenbach's original diagram was subsequently adopted by the Baron for use in the very latest versions of his book "Battleship Bismarck."
There are six photographs that show the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, presumably during the latter Phase II of the battle. Antonio claims these photographs prove that the Bismarck was on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen at that time. Twenty years ago, I discovered that the six photographs had actually been printed in reverse, as described in my original posting under this topic.
Every new discovery concerning those photographs tend to support the reverse photograph theory. When looking at those six photographs, as well as frames from the battle film, the near (port) side is always in the shadow of the flash from the Bismarck firing her guns. Another factor is that the smoke, which eventually evolves from the fireball, is always seen to form on the far (starboard) side of the Bismarck. These are clear-cut indications that the Bismarck was firing to starboard, but since the enemy was known to be always to port of the German squadron, the photographs had to have been reversed.
There is also Photo NH69726, which shows patterns of light reflected from structural components on the Bismarck that can only be seen from the port quarter of the ship. Some still dispute this, but they have never been able to come up with an alternative using port bow views of the ship. Antonio had attempted to poll forum members as to whether they saw front turret mantlets and gun tubes on the forward turrets of the Bismarck in Photos NH69727 and NH69728, but that effort really did not prove anything since enlarged views of the turret areas in glossy prints show no such detail.
And finally, there is just plain old common sense to fall back on. Is it really reasonable to conclude that the Bismarck would turn away from the Prince of Wales just at the time when she was getting the better of the British battleship. The Prince of Wales had already given up the fight and was retreating from the scene to the southeast under cover of smoke, so what possible reason would Admiral Lutjens have for making such a turn?
The coast of Greenland and its extended icecap was just a few miles to the east, so the Bismarck could not really escape from the British forces by turning to starboard in that direction. Also, the Bismarck remained within range of the Prince of Wales' guns throughout the remainder of the battle, so what was the point of interrupting effective fire against the British battleship just to increase the range by a few hundred yards. To me, it just doesn't make any sense at all.
I believe in bringing all of the evidence on the battle to the table and taking advantage of the widest scope of participation by forum members in an effort to seek the truth in the matter. On the other hand, some would prefer to expound only their own views, ignore evidence to the contrary, claim that theirs is the one and only true version of what happened, ridicule the opposing views of others, and even try to have contrary points of view banned or expunged from the forum.
I can appreciate your desire to get this discussion off the Forum so that we can move on to other and perhaps better issues. John is also of the same opinion. My original posting on this topic was intended to bring the matter to a close, and I do not desire to prolong the agony by an endless off-line regurgitation of all that had been said before with little hope of anything tangible coming from it.
Antonio makes the point that some members of the forum have voiced distaste over the prolonged exchange of views between Antonio and myself on this topic. While I know that this is true, I can only wonder why they even open the topic if they are not interested in the subject. It is like the woman complaining about a man walking naked every morning in his apartment across the street.
On the other hand, this topic has generated interest and participation by a significant number of members of this Forum, including Vic, Ian, Marc, George, Patrick, Guillermo, Bill, and Tiornu, just to name a few. Antonio's proposal would leave them out of the picture completely while Antonio and I went through our deliberations on every aspect of the battle which could go on indefinitely.
If there were the slightest possibility that anything productive could result from the course of action proposed by Antonio, I would take him up on his offer in a heartbeat. Unfortunately his past conduct, which is well documented on this and other forums, clearly makes that impossible. It is hardly likely that Antonio would have changed his character so dramatically as to allow for the honest exchange of views on a professional level at this point in time.
Antonio and I began our relationship a couple of years ago when he came upon the scene and I sent him much of the background material I had assembled in support my point of view. I had hoped that we could undertake a cooperative effort to seek the truth of the matter by a detailed and honest analysis of the issues from all aspects of the case.
The cooperative effort did not last long when Antonio summarily dismissed all of my points of view and developed his own reconstruction of the battle. He then declared his reconstruction to be "perfect" in all respects and the one and only true version of what happened during the battle. I have gone over his theory many times, and I have pointed out the fallacies of his position based on the factual evidence at hand.
Antonio responded which much rhetoric, but few hard-core facts and little in the way of logical explanations for his assumptions. We both have been going over the various issues time and time again, but we were never able to reach an agreement on any one of them. Our points of view are so diverse that there is little likelihood that we would ever reach an agreement at any time soon in the future.
When Antonio began demeaning me personally and ridiculing my points of view as "inventions," "fantasies," "imaginations," and even "lies," as the record will show, I discontinued addressing him directly, and I still avoid direct contact with him to this day. A person cannot easily reestablish a friendship with a few words now after such egregious conduct in the past.
Antonio is being disingenuous with his spurious proposal because he very well knows that that such an effort would be doomed from the start. Neither one of us would be prepared to give up our respective positions in the matter entirely because there is no middle ground to pursue. I'm afraid that his proposal is just another ploy from his bag of tricks to divert attention from my summation and avoid having to defend his reconstruction to the other members of the Forum with solid evidence such as I have provided in support of my concept of the battle.
I have done all that I can do at this time. My summation is like the closing argument in a court trial. The pros and cons of the case have been presented by both sides many times over during the last couple of years, and it is now high time to bring the matter to a close. I have given my summation of the case and I have nothing further to add, except of course in response to comments or inquiries from the jury, our other involved Forum members.
I have not asked Antonio to do anything. It's entirely up to him as to whether he prefers to sit on his laurels of having the one and only "official" version of the battle, which therefore needs no further justification based on evidence and facts. That of course leaves my own summation unchallenged, which can be interpreted by some as a victory for me. It's now up to the jury to decide which set of evidence and version of the battle most likely represents what actually happened during the Battle of the Denmark Strait on 24 May 1941.
You and Antonio both seem very sure about the positions being taken, and both of you have chewed up the other rhetorically. I have watched, and can see no real progress being made at present that would verify that either party has a lock on the truth. Perhaps the photos will lead us somewhere, but when we start arguing about the course heading of bubbles vs ships -- well, that says it all for the quality of our observations and the depth of our debate. I'll await the picture, hope that they are shared in the origional form, and then see what comes about. As for the attacks on you, some are misguided, wrong, or just silly. But you have been no saint, and we both know that is the case.
You have acknowledged that I have been verbally attacked, even though such personal attacks have no place on this or any other forum. Forum members should be able to participate in an exchange of views on the technical issues at hand without being personally debased or having their views ridiculed as being "inventions," "fantasies," "imaginations," or even "lies."
The only reason I can think of for those personal attacks on me is that the persons making those attacks are deathly afraid of the truth coming out. If I had been presenting false evidence to support a bogus theory of the battle, that soon would have been discovered and I would have been driven from the scene in complete disgrace a long time ago. Yet to the contrary, every new discovery seems to have strengthened my case.
Regarding your comment that neither side has a "lock on the truth," the unique feature about the truth is that every valid piece of evidence must fit together more or less perfectly like a jig-saw puzzle. If any pieces do not fit, then they are not valid or we don't have the true story. When we do not have concrete evidence to resolve inconsistencies in various stories, we must come up with completely rational explanations for the version that we choose to support our case.
My only defense against personal attacks has been the use of truth. I merely quote the exact words used by my attackers to reveal their true nature for everyone to see. The truth can often be uncomfortable, and it may even hurt at times, but if telling the truth under those circumstances makes me less than a saint, then I guess that I must plead "guilty."
I have never attacked anyone for merely expressing views contrary to my own, as most of you can attest to. In fact I welcome constructive criticism and enjoy debating the issues on their technical merits alone. I don't see eye to eye on some issues with either web master or other members of the forum, but there has never been a harsh word between us in any of those exchanges.
Antonio has accused me of being a "coward," "hiding" from the forum, and failing to respond to his many demands. I introduced this topic with a full summation of the facts to support my concept of the battle, complete with supporting evidence and even responses to the points raised by Antonio. It is now up to him to present the evidence to support his theory of the battle for the whole forum to see. I can appreciate his desire to go off-line on this, but that would not be appropriate for an open forum such as this.
I believe that the resolution of this primary difference between the two versions of the battle would facilitate further research of the secondary issues to come up with the final scenario of the battle. We are still far from that point, and continued dispute over the primary issue only detracts from those other efforts. I believe that when Antonio presents the justification for his theory of the battle, there will be sufficient evidence on both sides to resolve the matter and let us get on with the "bubbles" and other issues.
Trying to stay neutral in all of this is my main goal. I went through a grilling yesterday by a specialist in fluid dynamics that made it quite clear to me that I know little or nothing about some of the technical issues involved. He certainly verified my fear that complexities are being reduced to best guesses -- and these are laced more with invective than science.
I am as guilty as anyone of fanning flams, and of expressing myself in terms that do no benifit to any accademic. For example, nearly everything I write to randy is laced with scorn -- such is my antipathy toward it. But this approach gets us nowhere nearer the truth of things. Grand pronouncments, cocky claims -- it is all BS and everyone knows it who has a lick of sense.
The real efforts are being made in the background, and I am now into an area that is extremely complex. I have studied Hebbian reverberations as they influence the activity in PDP models of neaural nets. But I simply cannot wrap my tiny mind around the nuances needed to understand some of the fluid dynamics theory that we need to know to even begin making viable models for speed determinations. It is most disheartening -- proving that expertise in one area cannot be easily tranfered to another. Humility is a good thing.
You are achieving your main goal of trying to stay neutral quite well, but your sitting back and not getting more deeply involved in the technical discussions regarding the issue makes it more difficult for the group as a whole to arrive at the truth in the matter. In my original posting under this topic, I laid out in detail all of the evidence that supports my concept of the Battle of the Denmark Strait.
If someone doesn't agree with any fact or argument that I have presented, I would expect him to challenge me on the issue so that we can all discuss the matter and hopefully reach a consensus. If I have not convinced someone of the validity of my position, I would hope that he would state exactly what he would need in the way of proof or explanation to reach a conclusion in the matter.
When I challenged Antonio to reconcile the order for the Prinz Eugen not to fire over the Bismarck with his claim that the Bismarck was on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen at the time, you prodded Antonio to respond. Was his response acceptable in your eyes, and if so, why, and if not, why not? Instead, the ball was dropped and the issue was never resolved by the group as a whole.
This has happened all too many times in the past, with the result that we keep going around in circles. That prompted me to summarize my case in the form of a closing argument to present all of the evidence and facts of the matter at one time. I had expected that Antonio would do the same so that we could all then examine the totality of the evidence on both sides and determine which was the more credible account of the battle. But you saw Antonio's response, which in itself should tell you something.
I assume that you are a research scientist associated with Penn State University and an expert of sorts on naval construction. Perhaps you should venture more into the outside world and use your analytic skills to review the evidence at hand and try to come up with a reasonable conclusion regarding the overall issue. If you believe that some essential evidence is still missing, an explanation of its need or value and how it might be acquired might be helpful.
So far, we have the following to support my case:
a. My concept of the battle, with the Bismarck remaining on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle, is consistent with the Baron's account of the battle in his book.
b. My concept of the battle has been endorsed by the world recognized and foremost living authority on the Bismarck operation, Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer of the Institute for Contemporary History in Stuttgart.
c. The battle diagrams by Paul Schmalenbach and other noted German historians all place the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugren during Phase II of the battle.
d. The order for the Prinz Eugen not to shoot over the Bismarck is a clear indication that the Bismarck was moving up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle.
e. The photograph showing the Bismarck passing the Prinz Eugen off the port beam of the cruiser is another indication that the Bismarck was on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle.
f. And finally, the six photographs showing the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, when presented in their correct orientation, show the Bismarck to be actually on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle.
As to the six photographs having been printed in reverse, I offer the following:
a. The six photographs, when properly oriented, match perfectly with the four to five earlier photographs showing the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen. Together they form a contiguous series of views showing the steady progression of the Bismarck coming up from astern of the Prinz Eugen, passing the Prinz Eugen off the port side of the cruiser, and moving several hundred yard ahead of the Prinz Eugen before the cease fire at 0609.
b. The photographs, as well as the battle film, always show the port side of the Bismarck in the shadow of the flash from the firing of her guns to starboard, except for a few reflections from aft-facing surfaces of structural components as shown in Photo NH69726.
c. The flash from the Bismarck's guns, while originally appearing very bright in the foreground due to overexposure of the film, quickly diminish and disappear on the far (starboard) side of the ship, as shown in the frames of the battle film.
d. The huge cloud of smoke associated with the firing of Bismarck's main armament, and evolving from the fireball of hot combustion gases, never appears to develop on the near (port) side of the ship, but only on the starboard side.
e. The blast effect from the Bismarck firing her guns and churning up the surface of the sea into a white froth, is never seen on the port side of the ship in any still photograph or frame of the battle film.
f. The German Office of Military History Research has concurred in my assessment that the six photographs had been printed in reverse.
Again, I must ask you, and everyone else, what more do you need in the way of evidence or proof to come to the conclusion that my concept of the battle represents the truth as to what actually happened during the Battle of the Denmark Strait? What real evidence does Antonio have to support his theory of the battle? Which version is more credible considering the logic of the two concepts as well as the evidence?
My dissertation involved a detailed examination of the neuropsychological foundation of human communication, as in trying to devine what morphologically transpires within the brain as we process input and shift views. I wrote a text book on the subject, and then left the accademy after falling ill from a progressive neurological disease.
Yes, I have done a lot of research, written papers, passed exams, gotten degrees, etc., but I do not consider myself in expert in the issues at hand. I have learned enough about the scientific method, however, to know when something isn't quite right with the data or when an over-simplified conclusion is being presented as a general case.
And when I do turn my attention to the details, as I recently did with the speed issue, it is usually done with regard to examining the basis for claims, and seeing if the conclusions are supported by the data, record, etc.. And I usually get a lot of help from outside specialist in a relevant field because that is the only way to examine some issue that are unfamilier. In the speed case, we found there was a lot of noise that prevented a valid conclusion.
I suspect that if this much attention was devoted to each and every point, a similar unraveling of certain positions, etc., might occur. Will I do that? No, because we don't have much by way of methodology being presented. Moreover, I am hardly then person for the job. It is hard to just stay awake at times, and I must help my wife all I can as she struggles to run her business. The way I look at it, you and Antonio have made a series of claims, and it is your jobs to back them.
Moreover, I do not think appeals to authority or the record alone will suffice in some of these issues because the record is contradictory at points and authorities have taken a wide variety of positions. Nor am I convinced that broad claims, such as the photos being reversed, can be supported without a detailed examination of artifacts that may or may not support the view. I know the difficulties in doing this, but unless we see the negatives of those films -- if they exist at all -- then I just don't accept general conclusions concerning them.
Is this a rigorous standard? You bet it is. It is the same standard that I hold Antonio to. He is seeking the actual films, etc., which is what I have called for since the very beginning. And without those artifacts, we have little but opinion. I have much to do, my friend, and have written enough. You know my position, and what has to be done. Neither you nor Antonio has yet gathered the material that is needed to make many firm judgments, and thus I will not draw any conclusions.
Neither you nor Antonio has yet gathered the material that is needed to make many firm judgments, and thus I will not draw any conclusions.
You can avoid to take your own conclusions yet and this is OK to me, this call of course is based on single person competences.
You cannot put my work on the same level of Mr. Winklareth one because one is based on all the evidences available and are many, well listed and explained; the other is based on nothing but some inventions and poor research that does not even fit with simple mathematics verifications or photos and documents clear evidences that any average knowleadgeable person talking Bismarck and Denmark Strait battle should easily realize.
Both Jose Rico, John Asmussen ( togheter with Frank Allen previously ) have already clearly stated that in an educated but firm way to Mr. Winklareth.
I really do not understand were the problem is to tell to Mr. Winklareth that his work was poorly researched and his book is clearly been proved wrong and does not even get close to what really happened.
I could care less about what Frank, Jose, John, etc., etc., have concluded because their judgments don't mean that you have the entire picture correct as it now stands. Indeed, I am quite sure your work will need a bit of fine tuning, which is only natural as new things are learned. I do believe you make a compelling and persuasive case at present, although I doubt making a compelling case is in any way bolstered by your dismissing the work of others and calling them names. This behavior is as inappropriate as my own, and it is most certainly not worthy of a serious scholar. On the other thread we are nearly at a point wherein the differences between Rob and your own position will be displayed in a graphic -- as Bill has called for. I think this will summarize things in ways that make judgments far more possible. As for coming up with the absolute, definite, 100% provable scenerio, I doubt that is possible. There will be a most likily scenerio, and that is all. And as for now, Rob should come up with a plausible course graphic that visually expresses what he is so fond of saying. That is the missing element.
differently than you I do care about everybody opinion.
First of all the one of the person I rate competent guys on this Naval community, than everbody else including the ones that maybe disagree with me, .. I care especially about the newcomers and the unexperienced ones, .. the young ones, .. we have a responsibility versus them I feel very much, .. this is the way I am and I will not change my attitude.
Of course nothing in this world can be defined '' absolutely perfect '' and with no possibility of improvement especially if new evidences will become available, this include my work on Denmark Strait.
So far I am convinced and sure ( pardon myself been not so modest in this case ) about the work I am done been the best re-construction available using what we have.
Due to the above I think I can judge with good competence the work somebody else did and highlight the evident mistakes, always providing the support evidences to sustain my calls.
What I was expecting in fairness was an evaluation and after either to accept the facts as they show themselves or to have in response something better and more credible to rebuke my calls.
This never happened so far, and we are here still with same old refrain.
I think today I have provided another addittional help to the whole community to understand where the credible scenario is.
Just open your mail and we will see if using this we can move forward.
The purpose of my original posting under this topic was to summarize in one location all of the evidence supporting my concept of the Battle of the Denmark Strait and to put an end to my long-standing debate with Antonio over the many issues associated with the battle. I will therefore refrain from responding to any further arguments by Antonio if they have been adequately addressed in my original summation.
There will be times, however, when certain points will require further clarification, and I will not shirk from my responsibility to contribute whatever I can to assist in resolving the issue and seeking the truth in the matter. There is one point raised by Antonio and John Asmussen that does warrant a further response on my part., and I would like to address that issue now.
Both Antonio and John have stated that NH69726 cannot be reversed because to do so would have the Bismarck firing toward Greenland, which is of course ridiculous. I would have to agree with that observation if NH69726 were a port bow view of the Bismarck and showed the Bismarck firing to port, but that orientation of the Bismarck and her turrets has still to be proven.
All six photographs showing the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen are essentially silhouette views of the Bismarck which can be seen in either of two ways, the Bismarck coming toward the Prinz Eugen (port bow view) or sailing away from the Prinz Eugen (port quarter view). Antonio holds the former point of view, and I, the latter, and therein lies the crux of our dispute.
All six of those photographs constitute a distinct subset of the eleven photographs taken of the Bismarck from the Prtinz Eugen during the battle. They are all related to one another, having the same orientation with only a slight variation in inclination reflecting the relative movement between the two ships. Both Antonio and I agree that they all were taken within a two to three-minute time frame during the second and last phase of the battle.
Therefore any evidence that firmly establishes the orientation of the Bismarck and the direction in which her guns were firing in any one photograph would also be applicable to the other five photographs as well. With this in mind, I acquired high resolution glossy prints of the three photographs that I believed would have the greatest probability of yielding sufficient detail to positively establish the orientation of the Bismarck and her turrets.
I scanned the turret areas of NH69727 and NH69728 at a magnification of 15x, but all I got from NH69727 was a solid black mass with no detail at all that could establish the orientation of the Bismarck's turrets. From NH69728, all I got was blurred images of the turrets with nothing that could be interpreted as gun barrels, even when further magnified down to the pixel level.
Antonio claims that he could see the details of the front mantlets on the two forward turrets of the Bismarck in NH69727 and the gun tubes in the forward turrets of the Bismarck in NH69728. If he was basing his observations on published versions of those photographs instead of glossy prints, he could have been deceived by the pattern of dots associated with the half tone reproduction of those photographs, leaving their interpretation to anyone's imagination.
Photo NH69726, however, was much more revealing. That photograph shows the Bismarck silhouetted by the flash of her own guns, clearly proving that the Bismarck had been firing to starboard. If the Bismarck had been firing to port, her entire port side would have been illuminated by the flash, not just a few aft-facing surfaces of certain structural components.
By comparing NH69726 with other port quarter views of the Bismarck, it becomes readily apparent what components of the Bismarck were illuminated by the flash of her guns while firing to starboard. Port bow views show absolutely no correlation between the structural features of the ship and the patches of reflected light in NH69726.
Specific points of correlation between NH69726 and other port quarter views of the Bismarck include the rear surface of the forward control tower, the edge of the upper AA gun position on the port side of the control tower, the port AA director, and the center and rear 150mm (5.9-inch) gun turrets. Even the barbettes of those 150mm gun turrets can be readily distinguished. This proves conclusively that NH69726 had been reversed and that it is a port quarter view that shows the Bismarck sailing away from the Prinz Eugen.
Much has been said in the past about NH69727. When one sees the huge cloud of smoke generated by the Bismarck firing her big guns in frontal views of the ship, such as NH69722 and NH69729, it is hard to imagine that huge cloud of smoke coming toward the Prinz Eugen from the Bismarck in NH69727. If the Bismarck had been firing to port, as Antonio claims, the resulting smoke cloud would have obscured much of the ship, and especially the waterline area, but that is not manifest in NH69727.
Furthermore, if the Bismarck had been firing to port, a large area of the surface of the water extending outward for over 100 yards, the length of a football field, would have been whipped up to a white froth by the blast of her guns. This white foamy disturbance of the sea would have been clearly visible in NH69727 if the Bismarck had fired to port, but there is not the slightest indication of that phenomenon in the photograph.
I hope that the presentation of these facts will not only prove that NH69726 can be reversed, but that it actually had been reversed, as were the other five photographs, and that all of the photographs are port quarter views of the Bismarck sailing away from the Prinz Eugen as first depicted in my book "The Bismarck Chase." Unless someone can provide concrete evidence to the contrary, this issue should now be considered as closed.
) you seems still very sharp and acute and I have no doubts that if you really want you can do this with me.